Fig. 4

eEF2K deletion rescues balance impairment and motor coordination in Scn1a ± mice. A Counting of horizontal (left) and vertical (right) movements occurred in 3 h in the locomotor activity test. Scn1a ± eEF2K−/− mice show high number of horizontal and vertical movements. Scn1a ± had no difficulty in movement or climbing. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. N = 10 per groups. Statistical analysis $p < 0.05 versus corresponding Scn1a ± ; One-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc. B Time to fall in wire hanging test measured over 300 s. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. N = 10 per groups. One way-ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc. C Time to cross the 12 mm beam of trained WT, Scn1a ± and Scn1a ± eEF2K−/− mice. Scn1a ± mice are impaired in the balance beam test when compared with WT and Scn1a ± eEF2K−/− mice. All data are presented as mean ± SEM. N = 10 per groups. Statistical analysis **p < 0.01 versus corresponding WT, $$p < 0.01 versus corresponding Scn1a ± ; One way-ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc. D Time to downstream the pole in pole test. Scn1a ± mice are impaired in the pole test when compared with WT and Scn1a ± eEF2K−/− mice. All data are presented as mean ± SEM. WT n = 10, Scn1a ± n = 10, Scn1a ± eEF2K−/− n = 7. Statistical analysis ***p < 0.001 versus corresponding WT; $p < 0.05 versus Scn1a ± ; Kruskal–Wallis test, Dunn’s post hoc. E Scn1a ± mice show impaired motor coordination in rotarod test when compared with WT and Scn1a ± eEF2K−/− mice. The plot shows mean ± SEM latency to fall from an accelerating rotarod during trials. N = 10 per group. Statistical analysis *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 versus corresponding WT; $p < 0.05, $$p < 0.01 versus Scn1a ± ; Kruskal–Wallis test, Dunn’s post hoc